Forum:Removing the neutrality policy
Well, hello CBWians, it is I, the man of J. And I have noticed this "neutrality policy". I suggest this to be removed from being an official Wiki rule. I don't know why it was voted for, and if I was around to see it, I can gurentee I'd vote against it. I mean, I understand the logic, but does it really need to be part of the Wiki's Policy? Why can't I say that? Because of this pointless policy. I mean, does it really make sense that you can get a warning and possibly a ban because of this? That's like making a policy about people not being allowed to talk about things other then BIONICLE. See what I mean? Sure, it's not a big deal since I don't even do it, but I've seen people (Like ) get warned by an admin (Like ) over this. Just because on Sulfeirus' page, it says he's evil. Is that really a reason to get a warning? But, the main reason I''' have an issue with it is because in my storyline, there's alignment of Good, Evil, and Neutral, and as you told me on Mibbit, that's not allowed to be listed. So that's my main issue with this policy. I shouldn't be restricted to what I can and can't write. Now, not allowing cursing is fine, but not letting me show the alignment of my characters is not. Now, I'm not going to be an idiot and write " is a good guy in ". No, if you look on my wiki, you'll see on my character's infoboxes that list Alignments. It's not on the page, it's on the infobox. I think it looks encyclopedic. But, that's just me. Anyways, to sum it all up, I disagree with this policy and am asking for it to be removed. Vote below on For it being removed and against it being removed. -- 03:15, August 4, 2011 (UTC) Voting Yes, remove it # 8:36, August 4th, 2011 #The neutrality policy is stupid. Sorry. Baterra1202 #After thinking about it for some time, I've quit neutrality. --Sincerely, Cprl. Echo 1 High Resolution, 23:28, August 6, 2011 (UTC) No, keep it #J97Auditore' 03:03, August 4, 2011 (UTC) #ToaKayos 03:04, August 4, 2011 (UTC) #It should be kept, but I think it needs some more clarification and expansion in order to properly function as a wiki policy. [[User:TheSlicer|'KHA']][[User talk:TheSlicer|'AAA']][[w:c:custombionicle:User:TheSlicer/Nightwatcher's Review Club|'AN!]] 03:12, August 4, 2011 (UTC) #--'''TDG (Talk) 03:15, August 4, 2011 (UTC) #-- [[User:Abc8920|'6' cups]] [[User talk:Abc8920|'in' one year!']] 06:39, August 4, 2011 (UTC) #--[[User talk:Chicken Bond|'Welcome]] [[DR|'to']] [[BW|'the']] [[EU|'Fezpedia!']] 06:55, August 4, 2011 (UTC) #--[[User:Ids5621|'Ids']] [[User Talk:Ids5621|'5621']] 07:57, August 4, 2011 (UTC) #[[User:Scorpion665|'Worthless as ']][[User talk:Scorpion665|'the sun above the clouds']]' 4:50, August 4, 2011' #[[User:RandoMaster07|'Rando']][[User talk:RandoMaster07|'Master']][[Rando|'0']][[The Chroros Nui Civil War|'7']] #'Varkanax ' 12:36, August 4, 2011 (UTC) #I think this must stay, but it needs to be worked on. Shadowmaster 15:59, August 4, 2011 (UTC) #This is an encyclopedia, and morality should not be on encyclopedic articles. [[User:BionicleKid|'THE']][[User talk:BionicleKid|''DARK]][[The Dark Side|'SIDE']]: '''WHO WILL WIN?' #Never mind, though I do think it should be reworked, I guess it's fine to keep it. #'Dark Phyrrus Has Arrived' 23:21, August 6, 2011 (UTC) #You can always list a characters' personality as treacherous, sadistic,malicious, self-centered, ruthless and who knows what other words that define an "evil" personality. #Kylma300 23:35, August 6, 2011 (UTC) Comments I don't see this as pointless. CBW is meant as an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias should be objective. Labeling characters as good or evil is just the opposite of that, and can create problems if the labels are misused (which they will, and have). We shouldn't have to tell people what to think about things; they should be able to look at the facts (or the equivalent of facts in a fiction wiki) and judge for themselves. Besides, we certainly shouldn't take a stance in naming things as "good" or "evil"; I mean, look at the real world. There are no unambiguously good or evil stances. Taking a side not just on the labeling of a character, but also on the definitions of such labels themselves, is simply not a good idea. As a wiki, we should not take sides on that matter or any other. However, I do think it should be made more clear that the policy is for articles only. It's perfectly fine to refer to your character as the Evil Dark Lord of Unambiguous Badness outside of the mainspace so long as the wiki article has an objective description. [[User:TheSlicer|'KHA']][[User talk:TheSlicer|'AAA']][[w:c:custombionicle:User:TheSlicer/Nightwatcher's Review Club|'AN!']] 04:07, August 4, 2011 (UTC) Can I have a link to the policy? -The Mad Header 12:28, August 4, 2011 (UTC) I think I'll remain neutral on this one. However, I do find the neutrality policy to be a kind of "devil's advocate" policy after reading. Oh, and here's the link. Custom BIONICLE Wiki:Policy/Neutrality Oh great. Well, I'm not going to vote. After putting some thought into it, it both makes some sense and is dumb at the same time. But, I must ask, if a character in a story regards a being as evil, shouldn't we be allowed to write that? That's merely the opinion of the character expressing it. And, on Sulfeirus' (or one of Sulfy's I don't remember which) It states that Sulfeirus is the God of Evil, evil being defined as what Godmaster believed is wrong. Again, this is an opinion, and should be stated. However, getting warning or, heaven forbid, bans in regards to this is beyond ridiculous. That, is dictatorship. I can guarantee you, if someone gets banned over this, not many people are going to like the admin who did it. Anyway, so long as the character we call evil does not call himself evil, does this have no application? If this is going to be a policy, it needs to be a hell of a lot more extensive and descriptive. ODST! 15:30, August 4, 2011 (UTC) :I agree with you, ODST, especially on how it should be made more clear. What I meant when I wrote the rule was that it apply to encyclopedic mainspace pages only, not stories--in their writing, authors are free to do whatever they want regarding defining good and evil, just as Sulfeirus did. I don't have any problem with the elements of good and evil so long as it's made clear that that's what Godmaster's opinion on the matter is. :And ODST, if you're referring to TDG's actions on a recent blog comment, that was a misunderstanding regarding the applications of the policy. There's already been a discussion about that, and it won't happen again. Once more, the policy applies only to articles; it's okay to label characters as good or evil otherwise, even if I personally do see it as a simplistic form of morality. [[User:TheSlicer|'KHA']][[User talk:TheSlicer|'AAA']][[w:c:custombionicle:User:TheSlicer/Nightwatcher's Review Club|'AN!']] 15:47, August 4, 2011 (UTC) CBW should be an encyclopedia without morality on encylopedic articles. I understand that most would see one faction as evil and the other as good, but not all. CBW should be a website for people of all moral views. Stories are fine, as they are not meant to be encyclopedic, but literary art. [[User:BionicleKid|'THE']][[User talk:BionicleKid|''DARK]][[The Dark Side|'SIDE']]: '''WHO WILL WIN?' Well, the main reason I''' have an issue with it is because in my storyline, there's alignment of Good, Evil, and Neutral, and as you told me on Mibbit, that's not allowed to be listed. So that's my main issue with this policy. I shouldn't be restricted to what I can and can't write. Now, not allowing cursing is fine, but not letting me show the alignment of my characters is not. Now, I'm not going to be an idiot and write " is a good guy in ". No, if you look on my wiki, you'll see on my character's infoboxes that list Alignments. It's not on the page, it's on the infobox. I think it looks encyclopedic. But, that's just me. :Although I'm leaning for it being removed, but I'm still going to remain neutral. There is good and evil, but there are also more shades and colors of it. Humans have trouble understanding good and evil, since with tolerance evil seems to be put more into a point of view than an alignment. But you can't go out and state a character as good or evil for just deeds. As the old saying goes, "the road to hell is paved in good intentions." --Sincerely, Cprl. Echo 1 High Resolution, 21:18, August 4, 2011 (UTC) :: ...Curse edit conflicts. @Jman: Yes, but alignments in that case are not objective, that is, not neutral. All points of view should be presented fairly, and saying that a character is "evil" is not showing all points of view. Only the most extremely demented beings consider themselves evil. "Good" and "Evil" are not words you can slap on someone, it's the action that's evil. Now, I won't go any further into the "What a person considers good and evil are based on what the person himself believes" argument. But do your evil characters consider themselves evil? Probably not. They may commit many actions that many people would consider evil, but not all people, and on an encyclopedia, all points of view should be presented equally and fairly. 'Varkanax ' 21:22, August 4, 2011 (UTC) Echo. Do '''NOT bring religion into this. Shadowmaster 23:29, August 6, 2011 (UTC) Hey, I do agree with the fact that you can use plenty of other words to define evil. It's just stupid that you can't call a truly evil character evil. After reading CB's comment on IceBite's blog, I felt a compelled to say "You do realize that that is how man decides evil and good. God truly defines it, although I guess 'wickedness' is the biblical term for it." That is all I have to say to religion. But on another topic, this blog seems to be unleashing heck on the wiki. IceBite is even considering leaving because of this. I personally think this debate is pointless. If it's driving away users, it should be removed. If you can use synonyms for "evil", why not just say the word? --Sincerely, Cprl. Echo 1 High Resolution, 23:38, August 6, 2011 (UTC) It's a vote. It will remain until voted out. And no matter your personal religion or opinion, religious discussion is 100% BANNED. You can mention what religion you belong to and all, but using it in arguments is, as I said before, banned. Shadowmaster 23:40, August 6, 2011 (UTC) My main reason is only to stop this pointless war over a topic so small as the word "evil". As stated, you can always use synonyms, but some beings (like IceBite stated) are inherently evil, such as Sulfeirus and demons. Like I said early, it's a devils advocate policy. If a character is truly evil (say, they want to kill for the sake of killing and hate all other beings, and even call themselves evil), they can then be labeled evil. But if a being does something that is considered evil with good intentions, then they cannot be labeled as evil. Perhaps the policy should be relaxed rather than simply active or inactive. --Sincerely, Cprl. Echo 1 High Resolution, 23:45, August 6, 2011 (UTC) :But the whole point is that we shouldn't take sides on the definition of evil. We can't objectively label things as evil, can we? [[User:TheSlicer|'KHA']][[User talk:TheSlicer|'AAA']][[w:c:custombionicle:User:TheSlicer/Nightwatcher's Review Club|'AN!']] 23:47, August 6, 2011 (UTC) :As I said, a being that calls himself evil, commits evil acts, and is considered by all (including himself) is evil, and can therefore be labeled as evil on his article. Meanwhile, beings with good intentions but perform it in a way that is considered evil cannot be labeled as evil. --Sincerely, Cprl. Echo 1 High Resolution, 23:50, August 6, 2011 (UTC) ::Evil is 100% opinion. Shadowmaster 23:54, August 6, 2011 (UTC) :To add a little more reasoning to my theory, is a "thief" simply a "nontraditional shopper" then, even though he steals things from a person's house? Is a "murder" simply a "hateful exterminator" or as my friend called it, a "removal specialist", even though he kills without reason? Trust me, evil is not an opinion in its entirety. Part of it is, but like I said, it's a devil's advocate policy that should simply be relaxed so that truly evil characters can be labeled as evil. --Sincerely, Cprl. Echo 1 High Resolution, 23:59, August 6, 2011 (UTC) ::Yes, but a murderer or a thief is based on an action, such as killing or stealing. That's a solid action. What is "evil" to someone is based on what the person himself believes. Evil is 100% based on opinions. Even if he considers himself evil, he is still not evil, because it is always the actions that are evil. And, quite honestly, a character who considers himself evil is a pretty weak character... Varkanax ' 00:05, August 7, 2011 (UTC) ::No matter how you put it, nobody is truly evil. It's ''always an opinion. If a person considers himself evil, then that's his opinion of himself. if he's considered evil by every living thing in the universe, it's still an opinion. -'''Dark Phyrrus Has Arrived 00:09, August 7, 2011 (UTC) :::Exactly, Phyrrus. There are objective definitions for murderers and thieves; evil is always subjective. [[User:TheSlicer|'KHA']][[User talk:TheSlicer|'AAA']][[w:c:custombionicle:User:TheSlicer/Nightwatcher's Review Club|'AN!']] 00:45, August 7, 2011 (UTC) ::As I have said, you can list all the negative traits you want for your character's personality. That should be sufficient for the reader to make the assumption that the character is "evil." Listing them as evil is pointless, redundant, and completely unnecessary. You might as well list the character as "awesome," as if it were fact. Both the level of "awesomeness" and the level of "evil" are based purely on opinion. This is Custom Bionicle Wiki, not Custom Bionicle Discussion Forums, or Custom Bionicle Opinions Database. ::Hmm, so you could list a character's actions as evil on their page then, correct?--Sincerely, Cprl. Echo 1 High Resolution, 01:13, August 7, 2011 (UTC) :::Again, no. As I said, evil is completely subjective. [[User:TheSlicer|'KHA']][[User talk:TheSlicer|'AAA']][[w:c:custombionicle:User:TheSlicer/Nightwatcher's Review Club|'AN!']] 01:34, August 7, 2011 (UTC) ::: :::This is targeted at '''everybody':'' :::What I meant is you could list their personality traits that would''' define''' them as "evil", such as sadistic, malicious, self-centered, malevolent etc..' Not '''actually '''stating' they are evil; only listing idiosyncratic traits that would allow the reader to''' infer that the character is '''considered evil. Take the wikipedia article on Adolf Hitler, for example. Does it once say actually''' state he is "evil" no. As Slicer has pointed out, "'good" and 'evil' are entirely subjective". That decision is for the reader to draw, based on the facts'. Take my character, Gundak(Gunner), M.T. has stated he think's him a bit evil, although '''I do not once state he is evil; '''this was purely M.T.'s '''personal opinion'. (I apologies if this looks like I am verbally attacking someone; I am not I only used bold font to pronounce the key points. I'm not ranting at anyone in particular.